Ramsey v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19CV2643 SNLJ |
| Parties | DWAYNE RAMSEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence by Dwayne Ramsey, a person in federal custody. On May 2, 2018, Ramsey plead guilty before this Court to the offense of Felon in Possession of a Firearm. On December 13, 2018, this Court sentenced Ramsey to the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 76 months. Ramsey's § 2255 motion, which is based on several allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
On October 12, 2017, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD") officers responded to 3835 South Spring, in the City of St. Louis, within the Eastern District of Missouri, for a flourishing.1 Upon their arrival, officers were advised by Victim that as s/he walked byPetitioner, who was urinating on a dumpster, Petitioner pulled a revolver out of his pocket and pointed it at Victim. Petitioner then put the gun back into his pocket and walked to 3825 South Spring where officers located him. When the officers attempted to handcuff Petitioner for their safety, Petitioner quickly pulled his right hand away and attempted to reach into the front pocket of his hoodie. Petitioner continued to resist, forcing officers to tase Petitioner during the struggle. Officers ultimately detained Petitioner and seized from the front pocket of his hoodie a Smith and Wesson, .38 SPL Airweight Revolver loaded with five rounds of ammunition.
The firearm was determined by an expert firearms examiner to have been manufactured outside the State of Missouri, and, therefore, had travelled in interstate commerce during or prior to Petitioner's possession of it. Petitioner admitted that prior to October 12, 2017, he had been convicted of at least one felony crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year.
As a result of the aforementioned conduct, on November 1, 2017, a federal grand jury charged Petitioner with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1). DCD 1.2 Specifically, the indictment charged:
COUNT ONE
Id. Thereafter, Petitioner waived in writing and orally his right to file pretrial motions. DCD 28, 31.
On May 2, 2018, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the single-count indictment pursuant to a Guilty Plea Agreement (the "Agreement"). DCD 34, 35. The Agreement provided, in pertinent part:
DCD 35, ¶ 3. With respect to the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G."), the parties agreed that the Base Offense Level "is found in Section 2K2.1(a) and depends on, among other things, the nature of the Defendant's criminal history and the characteristics of the firearm." Id. at ¶ 6(a)(1). In the Agreement, the United States also reserved its right to argue that four levels should be added pursuant to Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) "because the Defendant possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense; to wit, flourishing a firearm and resisting arrest, both felony offenses under the laws of the State of Missouri." Id. at ¶ 6(a)(2).
Finally, pursuant to the Agreement, Petitioner agreed to "waive all rights to appeal all non-jurisdictional, non-sentencing issues, including, but not limited to, any issues relating to pretrialmotions, discovery, and the guilty plea." Id. at ¶ 7(a)(1). Similarly, Petitioner agreed to "waive all rights to contest the conviction or sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including one pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel." Id. at ¶ 7(b).
During the change of plea hearing, Petitioner, who was under oath, confirmed that he was satisfied with the representation he received from defense counsel, understood the consequences of pleading guilty, and had reviewed and understood the terms of the Agreement. Plea Hearing Transcript ( ), pp. 4-6. Specifically, Petitioner admitted that he was guilty of each of the elements of the crime to which he was pleading guilty and the Statement of Facts as set forth in the Agreement. Id. at pp. 12-15. Petitioner also indicated defense counsel had explained and Petitioner understood the Sentencing Guidelines contained in the Agreement. Id. at 8-10. This Court warned, however, that it was not bound by the guidelines and that it could impose a sentence above or below the applicable guidelines range, so long as the sentence was within the statutorily prescribed penalties. Id. at 11-12. At the conclusion of the hearing, this Court accepted the guilty plea, finding Petitioner was competent to enter the plea; did so "freely, knowingly and voluntarily"; and admitted "the essential elements of the crime charged." Id. at 15.
On October 25, 2018, the Final Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") was issued by the U.S. Probation Office. DCD 46. The PSR provided, among other things, that Petitioner's Base Offense Level was 20 pursuant to Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because Petitioner "possessed a firearm subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction for a crime of violence, Vehicular Hijacking under Docket No.: 01-CF-233." Id. at ¶ 23. The PSR added four levels to the Base Offense Level pursuant to Section 2K2.1(b)(6) because "the firearm was possessed in connection with the felony offenses of Unlawful Use of a Weapon-Exhibiting and Resisting Arrest." Id. at ¶ 24. With the deduction of three levels for acceptance of responsibility, Petitioner's Total Offense Level was calculated tobe 21. Id. at ¶ 32. With a Criminal History Category of V, the PSR determined a sentencing guidelines range of 70 to 87 months imprisonment. Id. at ¶ 78. The PSR noted that had the four levels not been added to Petitioner's Base Offense Level under Section 2K2.1(b)(6), the guidelines range would be 46 to 57 months imprisonment. Id. at ¶ 80.
Initially, Petitioner filed written objections to the assessment of the four levels under Section 2K2.1(b)(6), arguing that Petitioner drew the firearm in self-defense and put it away "upon discovering that the person lurking behind him did not pose a threat." DCD 40. Petitioner further argued the firearm was not used to "facilitate" his resistance to his arrest. Id.
Nevertheless, on November 27, 2018, Petitioner moved to withdraw his objections. DCD 50. Petitioner also filed a sentencing memorandum in which he requested this Court adopt a joint recommendation of 65 months imprisonment, which he stated was the product of "full negotiation and analysis" and was a sentence "sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)." DCD 55.
Petitioner appeared before the Court for sentencing on December 13, 2018. DCD 57. At the outset of the hearing, this Court confirmed with Petitioner that he did not have any "additions, corrections, or objections" to the PSR. Sentencing Hearing Transcript ( ), p. 2. Neither party having a factual or legal objection to the PSR, the Court adopted the findings of fact and legal conclusions contained therein, including the sentencing guidelines range of 70 to 87 months imprisonment. Id. at 2-3. Both parties then jointly recommended a below-guidelines sentence of 65 months. Id. at 4-5.3 At the request of the Court, the United States explained that the parties negotiated the 65-month recommendation in exchange for the Petitioner's agreement to withdraw his objection to PSR. Id. at 5. Having heard argument from counsel and allocution, and in consideration of a statement submitted to the Court by the victim of the offense, this Courtthen sentenced Petitioner to a within-guidelines sentence of 76 months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Id. at 6-7; DCD 59.
Petitioner did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Rather, on September 24, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant motion for post-conviction relief. DCD 61; Civil Case, DCD 1.
II. PRINCIPLES GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO SECTION 2255 MOTIONS
In general, to state a claim for relief under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, a federal prisoner must prove one of the following: (1) his sentence was imposed in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States; (2) the sentencing court did not have jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) his sentence exceeded the maximum allowed by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962). The defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief in cases involving collateral attack on a criminal conviction. United States v. Skinner, 326 F.2d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 1964).
Section 2255 is...
To continue reading
Request your trial